Finding the Words to Say, “No More”

When I was fourteen years old I was diagnosed with a very rare, very aggressive cancer. To be able to start my treatment, we learned, I would need to go to a hospital in a different city. There we met the oncologist responsible for heading up my treatment protocol. He was my future abuser.

Advanced Seminar Textbook, page 297

At first he seemed really nice. At that point I had no idea that I should see any of his behaviour as a form of grooming or something to be worried about. I remember my first night starting my chemo, when he came into my hospital room. We were alone. Nothing happened, but we talked about books, and I remember feeling strange yet flattered that he took a special interest in me. I didn’t understand until years later that this was when the grooming started. Fortunately, I was able to undergo most of my treatment in a city closer to mine, so I wasn’t near this doctor as often as I could have been.

Lies We Believe That Cause Stress and Disease: A Study Guide for How to Resolve 7 Deadly Stresses, page 23

Things changed when I finished my treatment. At this stage I was fifteen and my hair was slowly growing back. I was required to have follow-up appointments with him at the main hospital, and tests to make sure that the cancer hadn’t returned. These were every three months, and one test was done by him in his office every appointment. He was required to check my lymph glands in my groin to make sure there was no spread of the tumour there. This test was done by the surgeon and the radiologist too, at different appointments, but with this doctor it was always different. Wrong. With the other two doctors it was simply an examination. They always took care to avoid any area that was too close to my most personal place. With the oncologist it was never like this. He seemed to enjoy being able to touch me there. He always lingered much longer and touched much more than he was supposed to. My parents were also in the room, but he blocked their view with his body. I had always thought sexual abuse was obvious in nature, more like rape. I didn’t know that a man brushing his hand over my private parts or putting his hand down my underwear, under the guise of doing a medical examination, would qualify as sexual abuse. I thought that because my parents were in the room, it couldn’t have happened.

Ten Ways to Test Your Obedience, page 1

I tried to explain to my parents that I didn’t like him touching me. It was years later that I found out that my parents thought I was just being a hormonal teenager, and overmodest. The thought that somebody would do something like that never entered their minds, because they had been in the room for the exams. I had no words to be able to say “I don’t like it when he puts his hands down my underwear and touches my….” I had no words because I was never taught them. I didn’t know the names of my body parts. I didn’t know how to describe what he did to me. Worst yet, I thought that I deserved it. I thought that I must have asked for it, because why else would it have happened? So I endured it until I was 18 years old. Every three months I would prepare myself for what I knew was going to happen. Every three months I would hide behind my wall as we journeyed to the hospital some three hours away. Every three months I would travel to the hospital feeling alone, terrified, and helpless. Every three months I would travel home feeling guilty, ashamed, and dirty.

How does ATI link into all of this?

Ten Ways to Test Your Obedience, page 2

The mindset of total submission to those in authority, not just to my parents, was drummed in from as early as I can remember. This set me up for abuse in not just this situation, where the abuse was sexual in nature, but for numerous other occasions, whether at the mercy of an extremely emotionally and verbally abusive boss (in a number of jobs I worked), or an emotionally manipulative, verbally abusive, and isolating boyfriend, to name a few. This kind of thinking sets up the victim for failure and abuse over and over and over again. I was trained to be completely vulnerable in every way. It effectively hung a sign over me stating “target.”

It wasn’t just the teaching of total submission that was the problem, though. Emphasis on modesty was so strong that words to describe the body were never taught to me. To this day I still can’t say out loud ‘vagina.’ I still feel dirty saying it. I know in my logical mind that this is a clinical/scientific word to describe a part of the female anatomy, but because I was not taught or allowed to say it, it still feels wrong. Because of this I couldn’t physically say what my abuser did to me. I literally had no words to describe what happened. I was totally powerless to help myself, to get my parents to understand what had happened. I understand that the thought of something like this happening didn’t cross their minds because they were in the room. How could it? I don’t hold them responsible for that aspect of what happened, but I do for not giving me the skills to protect myself.

To seal my fate, as it were, there was also the teaching that bad things don’t happen to godly people. So in my mind, because of this teaching, I felt that I had somehow earned this, that it was my fault. I must have asked for it, because why else would he do that to me? I must have dressed provocatively in my almost floor length, figure hiding, not-sexy-at-all skirt. My sack of a shirt must have created such an eye trap—even though I was so completely hidden under it all that I may as well have worn a burqa—that he just couldn’t help himself. I honestly thought all of this. I had no knowledge of sex, didn’t know the names of my body parts, dressed to hide myself from men because I didn’t want to cause them to sin, was ashamed of my body, and was ashamed for being a woman, because men just couldn’t help themselves if I looked remotely beautiful or attractive.

All of this false teaching was drummed in from as early as I recall. I was literally brainwashed for years. The guilt of what happened clung to me for years, because I thought I somehow stepped outside of my dad’s authority to cause this to happen. Either that, or God somehow let this happen to teach me something.

My Healing

About three years after the abuse stopped, I finally faced what happened and gave it a name. My world came crashing down around me as I began to understand exactly what happened. I began to realise that this was why I wouldn’t let anyone, man or woman, into my personal bubble. I hadn’t felt human touch for years. I didn’t know how to handle it. I didn’t know how to respond in a safe way. I didn’t know how to feel anything other than terror when somebody came too close.

That year was the hardest year I have ever experienced. In facing what had happened, I opened the door to acknowledging the fear that I constantly felt, and I had multiple panic attacks on a daily basis. I developed bulimia as a means to punish myself for the part that I thought I had played in the abuse. I stopped spending time with friends and family, and felt that I couldn’t trust anyone. I had been taught to believe that bad things happened through disobedience, through not trusting God enough or having bad thoughts, through not spending enough time reading the Bible or praying. If something like this happened, then it was my fault because I was a girl. I asked for it. I must have tempted him in some way, so therefore I deserved it. The shame and guilt of being a woman was almost too much to bear. I completely derailed. It was like I had to hit rock bottom to strip away all the junk and lies that I had believed for so long.

And then I started to rebuild. I realised that even if I hadn’t had the words or skills to be able to express what had happened, it still didn’t mean that I had let it happen, that it was my fault, or that I had asked for it. What happened wasn’t on me. It was on him. He did it. Not me. And now I have the words to say, “no more.” Now I know that God’s plan isn’t abuse of the vulnerable, that it wasn’t my lack of faith or not working hard enough to earn my safety or salvation.

My story isn’t like those of many, in the sense that what happened to me wasn’t as horrific as what a lot of other people experience. The ramifications, though, were far reaching. It has been a little over 10 years since it ended, but the effects are still felt. I still can’t set foot in a hospital without hiding behind my wall. The joyous occasion of my son’s birth was marred with fear of being in that place. I still don’t like people touching me, but am finally more open to it, and know that some people express their love and affection that way. And that’s okay. I still find it hard to trust people, and wonder what their ulterior motive is but this is improving with time.

My faith has not been shaken. I was created as a woman for a reason. My womanly body gave life and nourishment to my son. There is no more shame in who I am as a woman. I can be beautiful without causing a man to stumble and lust after me because of my womanly form. My wonderful husband has taught me a lot, too: that I’m worth more than what a man can do to my body.

Tanya is a wife, a full time stay at home mum, and formerly a public school teacher.

All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.

107 Comments

Posting relevant selections from BG's teaching alongside Tanya's story really shows just how damaging it is. Tanya, the dehumanisation – you don't get to understand and celebrate your own body – in the name of purity that you and so many others had to live through is dreadful. The fear and loathing of women that permeates this teaching is so so harmful.

Also ridiculous.

The 'Dedicate your body to God' segment above might as well read: 'If we do not dedicate our body to God in a specific prayer inside a sacred circle of whole wheat kernels while wearing a garment without mixed fibres bearing an offering of beef that has never touched cheese well before sunrise on the 14th day after menstruation has ended having determined that no white male in a blue suit could imagine that our motives are anything but holy, then Satan will have control over it by default'.

Your story is so tragic. I can completely empathize with not being taught normal anatomy or information that should not have been treated like such "evil.'' It ended up creating more vulnerability by ignorance. I'm just so sorry this happened to you. I'm so glad you are living free of the confusion and FALSE GUILT and bondage. Thank you for sharing your personal story with us. Blessings to you!!!

I have only a vague understanding of Freud, but I think he'd say that Gothard wouldn't want the burka and veil. It seems Gothard's type is more toward June Cleaver. His views of gender, courtship, and family are an elevation of Victorian cultural sensibilities in the guise of biblical teaching.

BG's over-sensitivity to every detail of a woman's appearance and her "responsibility" to cover up every which way possible, so as to not make the man "stumble," is just a symptom of his own failures and his subsequent placing the blame on the woman.

I remember being at the ITC when a young man went to leadership, saying that a girl with open toed shoes had made him stumble. They made an announcement to all the young women - no more open toed shoes. I remember thinking, UMMM, how about remove the little pervert instead of conforming to his whims by punishing all of us??

She says that she submitted to an abusive boyfriend, and implicitly blames Bill Gothard for that. I was at a conference once where Gothard specifically mentioned some girl talking about submitting to her boyfriend and him adamantly saying, "Of course I never said or implied such I thing". In fact he told it for humor and as a joke how people misinterpret what he said.

Was Gothard to blame this girl wasn't adamant enough in telling her folks (or her Mom at least), "Look, I just do not like how that particular doctor is touching me." Would Gothard advocate her continuing to submit to sexual abuse out of submission to her doctor, her parents or whomever? No, he would not have advocated that. Is anyway asserting the contrary? If she went up and posed this scenario to Bill Gothard, do you honestly think he would have told her, "Your feelings are invalid, go ahead and let that doctor touch you however he wants because he is in authority."

I've got it now -- she should have made an appeal to him while her parents were in the room, "I feel that your touching of me is overtly sexual, could you please stop that?" The doctor would have probably been so offended that he would have removed himself from the case. Or maybe she never learned the word "sexual" because of Bill Gothard. (She said she saw this doctor till she was eighteen.)

Stop. Stop it. Just stop. If you are only going to read someone's story for the sole purpose of trying to discredit them, don't. You did not mention the part where she says she didn't know better, because she DIDN'T know better, she'd never been taught. Maybe if you were a female, you'd have a better idea at how legitimate this is, even sometimes worldly wise females don't know how to handle certain situations, and when you're raised all your life to not know any better, you DON'T know better until you figure out wisdom through painful experiences.

I agree, Megan. I grew up in a worldly environment and still didn't understand about how to deal with sexual harassment in the work place. I didn't develop an understanding of healthy boundaries until way later. Even worldly girls are still innocent and naive in areas regarding men. That is why I am bold and matter of fact when I talk to my children about this subject. The subject may embarrass them, but some things have to be said.

She is saying that her upbringing did not equip her to handle situations that arise regarding sexual development, appropriate sexual boundaries and the freedom or power to see her body as every bit as important as a mans.

Denial and blaming the victim, with the weight of so much testimony, demonstrates ones total faithfulness to the cult leader and lack of belief in the truth. Praying for the Lord's blessing upon Tanya and all those who suffer...

Well, just to refer to that last case study that Megan took such exception to -- I can't find anything wrong with it. It says (or rather she says -- its her testimonial) that she should have told someone about it and not concealed it. She says she shouldn't have been bitter for 14 years over it. She says her Mom indicated there was some sort of generational curse regarding this, and I'm not so arrogant personally to discount something like that out of hand. She says she resolved to forgive her abuser. That sentiment almost seems mainstream.

And on the subject of Bill Gothard again, after reading all the testimonies (most of which were completely credible) I do not believe he personally sexually abused anyone. I expressed my best guess as to his motivation in the BG confessional thread. I absolutely believe what I say there is what was going on. That doesn't mean he doesn't have something to repent for, as at some level he was using those girls for emotional fulfillment, considering he had never gotten married. But he did not sexually abuse them, imo.

Luke BralyApril 28, 2014

But there's things I may not know about BG. There was something rather sordid being said about him I was going to read here, but I lost track of it.

RyanApril 28, 2014

Why would he have something to repent for if he didn't sexually abuse them?

Luke BralyApril 28, 2014

Ryan, for one Paul instructs Timothy to treat younger women like sisters, and I don't think BG was doing that.

But the stroking of hair, playful signs of affection, etc. could (as incredible as it may seem) be motivated by some fatherly sort of affection? (read my full explanation in the thread on his mea culpa letter.) Or maybe he was influenced by the fact that past a certain point, he knew he would never get married and his behavior around girls had almost a nostalgic tinge to it. But if he was actually fantasizing about these girls and then going home each evening and jerking off, then, that's a different story, but who has proof of that.

I personally care about the legacy of Bill Gothard. I and many people I knew attended his conferences for years. Most of us though had enough Bible knowledge to begin with to not necessarily take him as the final word without question. Most people supposedly "victimized" by him seem to be those with little actual biblical knowledge themselves, that just treated BG material itself as the word of god.

But almost everything he said, to me, was compelling and warranted serious consideration. At the last conference I went to, he was talking about the importance of praying out loud at the top of your lungs, and sure enough if you go back to the Psalms, David is always doing that (i.e. not just praying "in his mind"), and I NEVER noticed that until BG pointed it out. And it seems throughout his career he was pointing out things that I or basically no one had noticed before.

ShaneApril 28, 2014

Luke- you have described a foolish man.

horseApril 28, 2014

Luke, I will say again, this article is not about Bill Gothard's behavior. There are many, many threads on RG that are, but this one is not.

Someone has told a very personal and difficult to read story, and you are changing the subject. This article is about the her experience and how it was affected by the teachings. It's not about Bill Gothard's actions towards other young ladies.

Regarding the case study, their statements further an abhorrent set of teachings. If a victim and her mother help spread those teachings, then they are passing the harm done to the victim on to others. Finding a victim and her mother who say terrible things doesn't make those terrible things good. They both need help.

kevinApril 28, 2014

"And it seems throughout his career he was pointing out things that I or basically no one had noticed before."

No one else noticed them before, because they aren't actually there in scripture.

Anonymous from somewhereApril 28, 2014

So Luke, you are one of those really "good" Christians like Alfred? So biblically smart that you could dismiss BG's errors but be inspired to even better Christianhood when he taught those great biblical insights that only he could see?! Wow!

I didn't think anything could make me feel more like simultaneously vomiting and throat-punching someone than this article, but Luke's comments have just taken that prize. I really, really hope you are an internet troll just trying to make us all mad, and not someone who legitimately believes what you're saying. Wow to the max.

First of all, I definitely sympathize as to what she endured from this doctor, and take at face value the guy was probably a lecher or porn addict or something, and could not disguise his obsessions even when conducting routine medical exams.

I'm just trying to make a judgment as to the causal correlation between BG's teaching regarding authority or what have you, and what this young woman endured. Its difficult to say, as first of all, she never actually mentions Bill Gothard or his teachings explicitly. If her purpose was to cast aspersion on BG, is it sufficient for her to just relate her bad experiences and leave us all to conclude, "Oh, its obvious BG is to blame".

She indicates that her parents were always in the examining room when this doctor was performing this examination. That must mean they were sensitive to the possibility at least of abuse I think, or were sensitive to her feelings. And she says that she related to them at the time that she was uncomfortable with this doctor. But she never says what her parents' response was to her, at the time. And frankly I am incredulous -- that at 15,16,17,18 years of age -- she didn't know the "V" word, and even if she didn't know it, why that word was necessary to convey to her parents that she felt uncomfortable with the exam (and she said she did tell her parents anyway). I mean, her parents would have had knowledge of the general physical area where the exam was being conducted on her anyway, right?

It would help to know what her parent's response was when she first told them about it. If they said "You are not submitting to our authority or judgment -- you are out of God's will", then she would have a case that BG's teachings are to blame (that is if she had actually indicated her parents were devoted to BG's teachings). But she never says what her parents' response was at the time, or how persistent she was in conveying her concern. And if she herself put up with it silently for the most part, because she was convinced that nothing bad could happen to her if she was under "God's Umbrella or authority", then why did she complain about it to begin with?

And, if she or her parents had not been influenced by the poison of Bill Gothard's teachings, how would things have played out differently? I mean, plenty of women who have never heard of Bill Gothard have been abused by their gynecologist.

Presumably, this article was posted because either the young woman or RG has an ax to grind with Bill Gothard. Is it too much to ask the causal correlation between him and her bad experience be spelled out? If she was suing him, any defense attorney would be much, much less sensitive than I have been. So, hopefully that makes my motivation clear.

If this is just a support group for BG's survivors, and the only appropriate response is, "You are so BRAVE, HUGS, God Bless [etc.]" then I apologize.

Luke saying you definitely sympathize does not prove the matter. Your posts show no sympathy. You're right a defense attorney would be harsher in going after her to discredit what she says she experienced. Again, this is not a court of law or trial. You are not the arbiter. You're free to defend Gothatrd and show no sympathy for the women who post here, but don't be surprised when people advocate for her. Especially when they've actually experienced similar things. They've had their own experiences of how Gothard's teachings corrupted their thinking clearly in such situations.

You said:"I've got it now -- she should have made an appeal to him while her parents were in the room, "I feel that your touching of me is overtly sexual, could you please stop that?" The doctor would have probably been so offended that he would have removed himself from the case. Or maybe she never learned the word "sexual" because of Bill Gothard. (She said she saw this doctor till she was eighteen.)" Correct me if I misunderstand but 1) it has a tone of oh maybe snark? 2) when you say the "doctor would have probably been so offended that he would have removed himself from the case" I understood you to mean that he'd be offended because he'd been falsely accused. Whatever you meant, sympathy would show some caution.

It's not just what Gothard taught about authority, the body, gender roles, "crying out", the victim's role in their own abuse, that created a culture that exacerbated the destruction of being victimized. It's the lack of teaching good healthy views of relationships, sex, sexual desire, the equal dignity and value of women and children, the evil of using authority for power, control, or comfort. To actually speak out loud about the abuse of "truth" and to say out loud that being the husband/father does not entitle one to be a tyrant or control freak in their home. That the gospel says to the wife and child to get out and speak out against abuse. That the Bible allows for divorce and sees it as a righteous option in order to protect the vulnerable, abandoned, and abused. See Gothard has a lot of half-truths in his system. Speaking false truths AND half the truth is the causal link here. They create a culture of vulnerability described by Tanya.

RyanApril 28, 2014

1. Luke you are missing the correlation to Bill. It is a mindset that he imparted onto his followers.

2. I would put money on the fact that Luke doesn't have a daughter. Maybe not though as we have seen play out with other Bill supporters, his innocence is more valuable and trustworthy than a womans dignity.

Luke BralyApril 28, 2014

Shane, the part about the appeal with her parents present in the room was serious -- convey honestly out loud what she's feeling, and if she's right, the doctor resigns from the case in a feigned huff. Even if she's wrong he resigns, but that's what she wants anyway -- right? If the guy makes her feel that uncomfortable, whether or not she's right, I think professional responsibility compels him to absent the case. I'm inclined to think she was right. I don't know where BG says to suffer in silence. Even in that last case study it indicates the child in question was wrong for not speaking out. This girl apparently suffered this abuse from age fifteen to eighteen.

The part where I said maybe she didn't even know the word "sexual" was snark.

ShaneApril 28, 2014

But Luke you didn't say in a feigned huff in the original post. You said he'd have recused himself having been offended. I give you the benefit of the doubt that your explanation is what you meant by the original statement, but that makes your original comments reckless and unsympathetic.

And the snark (which I'm not saying is never acceptable in generous discourse) has the affect of shifting the blame onto the victim here, which is unsympathetic as well. It gives the impression that you're willing to throw a victim of sexual assault under the bus in order to defend Gothard. I'm guessing you'd prefer to avoid giving that impression.

I've given you my view of how the culture of Gothardism (and I'd say way too much of Evangelicalism) creates a rug for abuse to be swept under. I have my own experiences counseling women who were abused emotionally, spiritually, and sexually by their husbands, and a major perpetuating factor was a church culture that talked a lot about "proper" gender roles, misquoting that "God hates divorce", dismissing the Bible's view of righteous divorce, teaching and unbiblical view of submission, elevating Western Victorian sexual and marital mores to the status of biblical without EVER (I don't think this is hyperbole) talking in church to the abuser; calling them to repent, rebuking them for using their role for their own selfish ambitions, or talking to the abused telling them what what their true biblically legitimate exit strategies are. This is a real problem with real consequences. I read Tanya's account as fitting these examples very well. Again, this is the causal link.

This is not offered as an accusation that Gothard victimized her, but that the culture of Gothardism made for confusion in the midst of being victimized; that his truncated teaching created a false understanding that exacerbated the problem. As I said, I believe this problem is way bigger than Gothard, but the documents cited along with this article confirm to me that his faulty teaching hurt Tanya and other women in similar circumstances.

I'd also like to remind you, regarding the culture of Gothardsim, there have been several testimonies that Gothard himself did not report know abuse to proper authorities. This doesn't spring up from nowhere. It's in the Gothard water, so to speak.

Presumably, this article was posted because either the young woman or RG has an ax to grind with Bill Gothard. Is it too much to ask the causal correlation between him and her bad experience be spelled out..

yeah, the thing is....she did; granted, this was not written in the form of a scientific experiment or a logic formula, but, yes she sure 'nuff didmy guess, though, is that you will remain unimpressed

According to the cited Gothard teaching in this article and the previous article on Recovering Grace, she is to submit in every way to he authorities unless she is "fleeing evil." The only exception is to make an appeal. She appealed to her parents, and they dismissed her concerns. They also did yet see what was happening as "evil;" in a cruel irony, parents who had raised their daughter in a modesty culture so strict that she didn't know the word "vagina" and worried that she had enticed the doctor by dressing too provocatively (when covered in loose clothing) dimissed her concerns as TOO MODEST. Look at the excerpt from that obedience list. She was already pushing it, according to IBLP's prescribed rules. Her parents rejected the appeal. According to the Gothard instructions, she must now submit, or flee, or cry out.

Her options were thus to refuse to go see the doctor again, which would have been categorized as blatant rebellion against her parents and "as the sin of witchcraft," or she could have "cried out" during the exam. Would you, as a teen this this situation, have screamed bloody murder in the doctor's office? If you say that you would have, you are almost certainly giving your teenage self far too much credit. Her third option was to follow the instructions, and submit to her parents, who said this was all above board.

-Presumably, this article was posted because either the young woman or RG has an ax to grind with Bill Gothard.-

Wrong. This article was posted to show the damaging effects of being raised under false teachings can have. She explained the correlation between her upbringing and her fear of standing up to her abusers quite well. And RG even provided helpful screenshots of pages from ATI training materials, to make the correlation even clearer. Perhaps if you can't see it, you just don't want to see it.

--- I was at a conference once where Gothard specifically mentioned some girl talking about submitting to her boyfriend and him adamantly saying, "Of course I never said or implied such I thing". In fact he told it for humor and as a joke how people misinterpret what he said.---

Because a girl being abused by her boyfriend is hilarious!

---" Would Gothard advocate her continuing to submit to sexual abuse out of submission to her doctor, her parents or whomever? No, he would not have advocated that. ---

Luke, you might want to take a look at this heartwarming tale. The young lady in question told Gothard flat-out that she was being sexually abused by her older brother. He told her that perhaps her "bitterness" had caused it. He sent her away and told her family that calling the authorities would do no good because they might "lose him (the brother) forever." And he did nothing to notify the authorities of the ongoing sexual abuse in this family.

Did anyone read the 'case study results', the last page from IBLP teachings that was posted? I am absolutely furious, sick, and angry!!! That poor girl!!! 'Least important part of me'.. yeah, it's so unimportant, it's only capable of bringing forth life.. no biggie, nothing to see here folks..

It's also so unimportant that every Christian circle would react if it were uncovered. (So would the secular world, frankly).. but yeah, it's the least important part.

And how she 'allowed it'. Yeah, cause a 3 year old who is threatened with death just has so much control over a near grown adult. And the text insinuates that SHE is the one who allowed the physical damage to also damage her soul.

I am absolutely enraged! I am certain that Gothard designed this teaching in order to give himself an excuse for his own dirty mind!!! These poor suffering victims who were probably grasping at anything for some peace and relief, only to be poisoned further!!!

A little note of clarification that should not reduce your anger at all: I'm pretty sure that 'the least important part of her' is referring to her whole body, not only her vagina. (See the latest article about BG's sexual abuse teaching 'Counseling Sexual Abuse'.) To BG the body is supposedly pretty unimportant. Except that, as every knows, he was obsessed with the appearance of the body.

"To BG the body is supposedly pretty unimportant. Except that, as every knows, he was obsessed with the appearance of the body."

Which brings out an important point---both viewpoints of the human body are forms of objectifying it. Bill was a master at objectifying the female body, as is evidenced by the many testimonies on this site.

greg rApril 28, 2014

quite like that when the ministry and 'results' became the focus, everything else became an object, though I can see where women and their appearance had center ring in that circus...

Caroline GApril 29, 2014

That is such a good observation. Objectification comes in many different forms.

(*sigh*) I'll not waste my ink naming names, but if the cold-blooded commentator above whodisturbingly, has no notion as to how grooming/abuse is put into motion, perhaps it's we, as the more enlightened (and sympathetic) who should pity him.If this 'Benighted Bart' ISN'T simply woefully uninformed, however, I'd be tempted to think of him in terms of an ATI-employed "Baghdad Bob", sent to this site solely to offer some ludicrous justification in defense of BG, anda system that for decades has intentionally stacked the deck against women and girls. I would suggest just ignoring his misogynist blather, but fear that he's already damaged his case badly enough to deserve the brunt of the oncoming retort.

The one giving specific direction on how women should dress, what kind of nail polish to use, etc. Sure, at first glance, it seems pretty creepy, but then look at what the Apostle Paul says --

(1 Tim 2:9 NKJV) I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,

I have to admit that Paul sounds pretty creepy to me as well when I read that. Doesn't mean I'm right though. A lot of times it seems BG is just taking scripture at face value and running with it. Do I really wish we could go back to the 19th century as far as how women dressed? No. Would it be better for all concerned? Possibly. Don't know what BG's dress code has to do with this girl getting sexually abused by her oncologist for three years.

That dress code refers to various ways that women wearing very conservative clothing could potentially "defraud," such as by, presumably, being too slinky and sexy while playing volleyball in mid-calf length culottes. The excerpt above shows what serious business "defrauding" is in ATI-land, and that while a male may commit this offense through the specific actions of talking marriage when he doesn't mean it or by touching a woman sexually, "a girl can defraud a boy by the way she dresses, talks, or acts"-- in other words, almost anything she is or does could be categorized as "defrauding" if a man has a sexual thought in response to it. It shows that while it might seem weird for a usual teenager dressed in baggy, covering clothing to wonder whether she somehow enticed the doctor into going beyond the necessary parameters of the exam to touch her vaginally for his own enjoyment, this is exactly the train of thought that ATI girls were trained to have. It wasn't eccentric or overly modest for her to infer her own possible guilt in this context. She was following the instructions.

I think it would help if you gave a little bit of background about yourself and what Bill has done for you. Right now you are throwing darts and no one understands where you are coming from. Are you still a student? Still at a training center? Is your dad Alfred??? etc. etc.

I live my life congruent with my beliefs which is why I want people to know where I stand and I think I have done that over the last few months.

Right now all you're viewed as is a naive young man following Bill and worried about his legacy because he has taught you a few things through the years.

Luke, I think you may have taken this verse in I Timothy out of context. You also have to follow it with verse 10. The meaning to me is that women are not to ONLY dress just with "braided hair, or gold or pearls or costly clothing" but as it says in verse 10 a Godly woman "dresses" with good works. This verse is often misread because no one goes far enough in the context.

One the I Timothy 2:9 quote: I have a totally different perspective on that passage. Many years ago, when I was studying ancient Roman history, I remember reading about the elaborate clothing and hairstyles women wore, some even having their heads shaved so they could wear intricately braided wigs made from the hair of slaves.

Fast forward several years, to my time working in a developing country. There, despite poverty bordering on malnutrition, one was not considered quite the thing unless one attended special events with elaborately braided hairstyles (which took hours to do), showy jewelry, and newly tailored outfits. It was almost shameful to do any less. As a result, women went into debt, resorted to begging, even prostituted themselves, just to keep up appearances.

Thinking back to what I had learned about Roman culture and what Paul and Peter had written about women's dress, I realized that Paul was simply telling women that they shouldn't worry about keeping up with the Jones in their appearance. They could simply dress neatly and not spend enormous amounts of time and money on braided coifs, jewelled collars and draped silks. They were free in Christ to dress plainly.

I hope my comment didn't make anyone think I was advocating for costly clothing, jewelry, etc. It is just that those things aren't important and you said it better. We should be noticed for our good works, not our dress and other adornments. I think I may have made it sound like that I thought we should wear costly clothing. Not my intention at all.

The Quiet OneApril 28, 2014

Eva, I agree with what you wrote about context. I just thought some real life application would help to clarify the passage.

"There, despite poverty bordering on malnutrition, one was not considered quite the thing unless one attended special events with elaborately braided hairstyles (which took hours to do), showy jewelry, and newly tailored outfits"

I've heard many tales of ATI families struggling to come up with the money for the ATI dress code and events. The Gothard girls I grew up with spent a HUGE amount of time worrying about their apparel; far more than my secular friends! Plain can be showy in its own way.

So no matter how 'modest' the requirements it seems that they were missing the spirit of these verses, that our adornment be that of good works.

The Quiet OneApril 29, 2014

I agree P.L. When I talked about the freedom to dress plainly, I certainly did not have the fussy blue and white in mind. Plain might be jeans and a T-shirt for working (rather than that ridiculous khaki and blue that stained so quickly) or a pretty dress on more formal occasions. What I meant is that one is free to wear the clothes one can afford. I might add that the newly tailored outfits that the women of the culture felt obligated to buy were modest according to the culture's standards. It was their price that wasn't modest.

Abuse and domination have been epidemic since the fall of man. When we step back from our own experience and look at the world and history, you see very similar situations across all cultural boundaries. The burqua analogy is instructive, not showing ATI to be particularly Talibanish, but showing how people continue to make the same error in responding to the fall and our twisted sexuality. Fig leaves won't cover it. We are bodily beings, designed for spousal love as a revelation of the communion within the Godhead. Genesis 3 warped all that, attacking this most significant aspect of our "imaging" of God. We were left alienated twice over: I do not trust my heart because of the lust I know to be there, and I do not trust the "other" because I feel and fear the desire for domination or abuse that resides in that heart. In response, we cover up, blame ourselves, turn inward and/or hate the other. But Jesus has redeemed us from the fall and in pointing to Genesis 2 He teaches that our sexuality can be redeemed in chaste and holy marriages that reflect a full communion of persons (no hierarchy there!). According to I Cor. 7, that sanctification includes marriages to unbelievers! But, suppression, repression, fear and guilt (man-centered responses) are not the path to victory. Instead, we should pray:"that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever." We are called to "be rooted and grounded", "have strength", "comprehend", "know" and "be filed". But HE is able "to do". Be His and Let Him do.With Paul I say "Amen"

Thank you Tanya for sharing your personal story. No one should have to go through this. It makes my heart happy to see the healing taking place. May God bless you and your family as you grow strong together in Christ.

In reading these comments it seems to me that the entire IBlP mentality is extremely repressive. God created us male and female for the very purpose of relationship. What is so wrong for a young man or woman to date while working at the Institute? What better way to meet the right guy or gal? I had this sort legalistic "sex-control" placed on me while I was in the Navigators in college, and I can tell you it was very destructive. The flesh is magnified when the Law is magnified, and when the law is hammered on a young man or woman you can expect sin to be close at hand. Godly, healthy male and female relationships should be encouraged, not feared. Yes, parental consent should be encouraged, but common on, let's quit treating our young people with such legalism, and give them the grace to form and pursue relationships.

Luke it's not the dress code dude did you read? It's the whole BG teaching of mindless women submission. You have no clue cause you don't have the right body parts.Imagine for a minute you are a woman you now have no rights no brain and must totally submit to anyone who is labeled an authority. Get the picture? Probably not. Women in the way of Islam have more rights then women following basic principles produced by BG. -Jeana raise ati BG k-12

Tanya, you've made an incredibly important point. Without knowing about and understanding your own body, it was very difficult to articulate the abuse that was taking place. Thank you for having the courage to share your story. The light is shining into some very dark corners of IBLP and ATI teaching.

"I explained how dedicating my body to God would mean that it was God's body that was molested and that I was then sharing in the sufferings in Christ."

What a sick and twisted comparison. Does he expect victims to feel honored? To celebrate? Congratulations! You are the victim of molestation and now you are one with Christ! The result of Christ's suffering was eternal life for all God's people! The result of Tanya's suffering was more pain and suffering (aside from whatever brief, disgusting thrill her oncologist experienced!). Yes, God makes beauty from ashes, and He can use even the suffering that comes as a consequence of another's sin for our own good. But to compare Christ's willing sacrifice to the victimization of an innocent young person by an authority figure who wields more cunning and power... ridiculous!

It's almost as if BG were trying to spin it so that the dozens of young ladies he touched inappropriately over the years weren't REALLY unwilling victims. Instead, they actually enjoyed the special privilege of sharing in Christ's suffering. They should feel honored. If there was a sin committed, it wasn't actually a sin against THEM, since their bodies actually belonged to God. So sad and so strange.

So sorry that you had to go through this Tanya. Thank you for sharing your story!

Christ suffered to atone for the sin of the repentant, not to satisfy the the sick lusts of abusers. His suffering brought about life and forgiveness to those who will accept it. Like you, Amy, I cannot see equating involuntarily suffering to satisfy another's sick lust with Christ voluntarily going to the cross to save souls. Crazy theology.

As much as I love RG don't you sometimes just want to say "STOP, enough already!!!!!...We get it!!!!:)

The parallels with the Institutes material is an accurate account of how the mindset was instilled in us.

We ask ourselves how we could've believed all this????? Well life and culture was much different in the 70's and 80's. I don't think the teachings were nearly as outrageous as they are now because as a culture we have a much broader more refined lens. Women were barred from practicing law until 1971, Martin Luther King Jr. was having to lead marches in the 60's for respect, opportunity and rights. I remember the internal turmoil in churches with the advent of the overhead projector in the late 70's which eliminated the need for hymnals or the battle over the inclusion of drums in worship music.

My point: As culture progressed, Bill digressed. Progress inherently leaves people behind, that's how we can scale progress. Sexually Bill is stuck as a 15 yr old boy (where his testimony begins) having never kissed or touched a girl with sexual intent. Those who see the Institutes teachings as wrong have progressed personally to a new level of respect for humans, equality for children, genders and races as well as a more well rounded world view.

I wish it wasn't necessary. The trolls demand proof, though, and though the trolls themselves are what BG might have categorized as "committed fools," the audience they speak for deserves to see that even these disingenuous queries have very good answers.

Some people like to castigate ATI students who experienced sexual abuse or harassment by asserting that, IF this really happened, they SHOULD have screamed, run away, or told someone what was going on. When the former students point out how the teachings of the system silenced them, and that in many cases they did tell an authority figure what was going on, people come back at them by asserting that OF COURSE the system didn't teach them to submit to sexual harassment and abuse, and didn't they have the spiritual discernment to know that what was going on was wrong? Well, yes, they did, and they were taught that they had invited the sexual treatment, or that it wasn't really sexual treatment, and that in any event they should submit to authority. In this system, if a young person is going to declare war by "crying out" against or "fleeing" an authority figure, that young person had better have an airtight case against the perpetrator that can be produced and proved immediately, or that young person is going to be dismissed as satanically delusional, rebellious, or a junior seducer.

What was taught verbally and applied at ATI training centers was usually a lot worse and more extreme than what was written down, and as you can see above and in Friday's post, what was written down was already pretty bad. It's easy for people to deny the existence of verbal teachings, but harder to deny published text, even if the text is much milder than what was taught in TCs and many ATI homes. And while not everyone involved in ATI spent time at Training Centers or heard the wackier verbal teachings in conference student sessions, everyone read some sampling and combination of these texts.

So, while feeding the trolls is not a desirable end in itself, it is necessary to show this world, this cage, those who genuinely don't understand the subculture in which these events took place, or were in a brighter corner of the subculture. The two guys sitting back at their computers and plotting their next attack will probably never be satisfied. But then, hell never is.

I really don't understand. Why is this Bill's fault and not her parents' fault? They should have taught her to submit to proper authority. This is what the Bible teaches, not just Bill Gothard. They also should have taught what is not a proper authority to submit to as well as when we should absolutely NOT submit. The first document plainly says the authority should be God-given. A doctor is not a God-given authority. One of the documents says to submit to a 'harsh' (definition is 'ungentle or unpleasant') authority, not an abusive one. One of the tests of obedience is 'no blind obedience'- obedience should be in line with God's laws, which molesting is not. What I'm wondering is why so many parents are blindly following a man and what they THINK he is saying (even when it's not written that way in the literature) instead of following Jesus? You've got to read the Bible along with whatever book or teaching you're reading in order to get the full picture. And these documents back that up when they say you need to know what God's laws are and who the authorities are that are God-given. If you don't read the Bible too you're going to get in trouble when you read anything written by men.

Pat- there is a parental responsibility but that does not negate Gothard's ministerial responsibility nor IBLP's organizational responsibility nor the doctor's professional ethical responsibility. Right?

There have been several parents on RG talk about/lament their responsibility. It does't absolve Gothard.

Bill Gothard is not mentioned in this article. If he were, though, it would a weird argument to say that it's not his fault that people took him at his word, instead of going to the Bible to see that he was wrong.

Look at the First Test and the Tenth Test on that list, and think about whether you, as a teen growing up immersed in authority and submission culture, would have known which one was applicable after your parents had told you that you were overreacting. It wasn't her parents who originated and published the instruction that appeals are one time events, and that when they're rejected, one must flee or submit.

Tanya's post should be read both as an individual testimony but ALSO as part of a larger body of work: the many testimonies presented here at RG about how Bill Gothard's false teachings on authority affected how women saw themselves, their bodies, and their relationships.

And ultimately how that affected their response to abusive situations, whether that was the sexual harassment of Bill Gothard himself, abuse within their own families, or in this case, abuse at the hands of a trusted expert.

Tanya herself doesn't use the word 'fault', except in describing her struggle in blaming herself. And as Shane mentioned, many parents have come to RG to lament their involvement in the transmittal of Gothard's principles to their children.

But to say that BG is NOT in any way at fault is to deny the stricter judgement of teachers clearly stated in James 3:1 as a warning to those who would seek to teach. Do you accept James 3:1, Pat? How do you think it applies to Bill Gothard?

Yes, I see what all three of you are saying. I am not saying BG has no responsibility for what he teaches. I very much agree that we should all be so careful with what we teach and we will be judged accordingly. But I'm just not convinced that, even based on the documents posted, he was saying that you must always submit to anyone older than you without discernment. I don't see that.As a parent, if I were to read and explain something like that first document to my children, I would elaborate and explain using scripture and I present all aspects of the topic. Like I said before, I would include in my teaching when it would be unwise to submit, when it would be a sin to submit, how to examine the situation before you submit, when to kick him as hard as you can and run for your life. I think that the information in that document is good. It's right to teach our children (and ourselves) to submit to authority, I also think that the information given is one true aspect but incomplete for the whole issue of authority. It's my own fault if I only teach one aspect of authority and submission to my children. These things written by men should be used as tools to supplement what the Bible says-not extra-biblical but explanatory. The organization is called 'Institutes in Basic Life PRINCIPLES'-not 'Laws from God's Word on How All Christians Must Live.' No one is forced to join ATI or stay there. And it seems to me that it's not just ATI. This is a common thing Christians do. We want it to be easy so we find a book or curriculum or teacher or pastor we like and follow everything he says then blame it or him when it all blows up in our face. Whereas if we follow Jesus and His Word and use these other things as helps rather that depending on them for salvation and living, we would never be let down or led astray. I believe there are false teachers and they should be exposed, but just because we follow someone in an unbiblical way does not automatically make them a false teacher.

ShaneApril 28, 2014

Pat- I'm not trying to pick a fight. By way of example: How would you defend the "Dedicate your body to God" biblically?

I read "If we do not dedicate it [our body] to God in a specific prayer, Satan will have control over it by default" as patently unbiblical. Imagine a girl in an abusive situation where she has been taught that God protects the godly and Satan has access over things not specifically dedicated to God in prayer. That submission to authority is the height of proper submission to God. Can you imagine why she might wonder whether she dedicated her body to God properly and that's why she's under attack. Thinking that she did not follow the proper chain of command and that's why. Then consider the inordinate and unbiblical emphasis Gothard places on a girl's appearance as that which makes a man stumble (whereas the Bible teaches that lust arises out of the heart of a man) and consider how that would affect how she processed unwanted sexual advances.

I could go on through these teachings making similar points about their being unbiblical and potentially contributing harmfully to a girls misplaced guilt and shame under unwanted sexual attention. I don't share your view that they're biblical or benign.

Luke Braly - You are harming those who Christ died for. You are favoring the strong over the weak. You are sinning. So long as you continue to call these women liars, and accuse them of motives of which you can have no knowledge, you are aligning yourself with the world, and with the great accuser, not with Christ. May God forgive the church for tolerating such as you all these years, and may He mercifully guide us in returning to a Biblical view of justice and church discipline.

Tanya, I'm so sorry that you were betrayed like that. A complaint should be made to that doctor's licensing body, as he needs to be stripped of his license to practice.

Seeing that Ten Ways to Test Your Obedience brings back memories. I used to read it every few months and beat myself up for not being more obedient. I believed it so thoroughly that at one time I struggled with Luke's account of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple; because according to the standards of the ATI document, Jesus was disobedient to His parents by staying behind without telling them. It took me a long time to figure out that ATI was wrong and Jesus was right.

As for the second test of Ten Ways - Obedience is acting immediately on commands - I think of it every time I read this parable:'But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”

They said to Him, “The first.”

Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.' (Matthew 21:28-32)

That Instant Obedience command (2nd test) completely throws out any possibility of negotiation, as in, "Would it be ok if I get back to you/help you out in 5 minutes / do you need it done right now, or can I do it after lunch?" - and to believe that negotiation is viewed as disobedience is crazy, IMO. Such teaching is lousy preparation for the business world, where lots of people have to juggle multiple priorities. A project doesn't have to be "damaged" to have the right to be negotiated on.

Look, on further consideration, its possible that everything she said is true, as well as the culpability of Bill Gothard's teachings. I just always personally tuned out whatever he said that I thought was too extreme. Maybe there are some extremely sheltered people like this family, that dress like the 19th century and just do everything BG says. Maybe the results are tragic, as in this circumstance. The Bible also says be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. Don't think this family or this daughter were very wise. If BG and his philosophy carried to the nth degree are to blame, then I apologize. BG and his whole outlook maybe worse than I realize. Or maybe not. At any rate, God bless you all, thanks for putting up with me, I'll try to leave you all alone now for a good while at least.

Luke, I think you mean well and simply haven't considered some things. We're all that way in some ways. That's why it's vital for the younger folks among us to learn from the older -- e.g., not just "older" based on age, experience or Ministry prowess, but "older" based on Biblical maturity and knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet you sound like you're beginning to see that many Recovering Grace readers have severe objections to Gothard's theology and false teaching, and had these objections long before they began saying, "He has specifically abused girls and women and enabled their abuse." A false teacher, even one who has not been charged with such claims, must be called to account for his twisting of Scripture. That is what Jesus Christ Himself, all His apostles, and the epistles strongly endorse all Christians to do.

Most of Gothard's teaching is false and built on a flawed foundation of what the Gospel is, what grace is, and what Christianity is even for in the first place. In this case, I would recommend you delve deeper than the personal testimonies and instead survey IBLP's/ATI's teaching in light of Scripture. Start with this recent article about the group's teaching on the human body, abuse and such. Note especially this image taken directly from specific Gothard "sexual abuse" counseling materials. Focus on the top light. The document repeats the common "churchian" canard that the body is three parts (itself a harmless misunderstanding) but then carries it further in saying that the "spirit" is the "most important" part and the body the "least important" part. Look up the passage cited there 2 Cor. 4:6-5:8. Does this passage at all teach that "the spirit matters more than the body"? Does it actually, by the end, say that Paul anticipates a new body and that we do not long to be unclothed, that is freed of a body's shackles, but instead "further clothed"? He refers here to the Resurrection of the body, a doctrine that Scripture wholeheartedly endorses and which is utterly rejected by "the body is the least important part of you" notions. In some cases these notions are actually heresy.

Finally, a related thought: questioning Gothard's guilt or false teaching does not mean -- as Gothard's own teaching would have you decided about anyone or anything else -- that all the good things God did through or apart from that teaching are thereby tainted and hopelessly evil. Another oft-neglected Biblical doctrine, the doctrine of common grace, reminds us that even evil people can give good gifts to their children (as Jesus Christ said in His Sermon on the Mount). It also reminds us that God works all things for good — but that does not mean He does not see sin for what it is or that we should ignore sin just because good came from it or because we ourselves personally benefited from the sinner's work. More on this can be found in my comment to Alfred here. Feel free to interact with me here, or find me on Twitter @EStephenBurnett .

I would just like to register my outrage at the "Case Study". If it is indeed a real life account,and not one of IBLP unproven anecdotes, it is horrifying (It is only slightly less horrifying to think if it is only an anecdote, that this is the way ATI recommended victims to respond to abuse). To think that ATI would have sexual abuse victims believe that they were sharing the sufferings of Christ by being abused!

How dare they bring Christ into it? Christ, who allowed the little children to come to Him and who said that if any offended such a little one it would be better for the offender to have died a terrible death first.

Saying that if you dedicate your body to God, then being sexually abused is sharing in Christ's crucifixion is downright pagan. Add that to the Gnostic concept of spirit over body and I begin to wonder if what the ATI religion is merely a revival of the dark and evil cults of the Roman Empire, where sexual rites were practiced to draw closer to the gods and spiritual knowledge was valued over physical well-being.

As for the generational curse idea, which I remember well, the prophet Ezekiel totally contradicts that, as did Jeremiah."The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Excerpt from Ezekiel 18)

Good comments. Any time we need to do something in order to gain a result, that is witchcraft; whether practiced in the church or elsewhere. I believe we are heading toward a one-world religion that will be based on such practices. That's why as Christians we need to be grounded in the Word as never before so we are not deceived.

Tanya, thank you for bravely sharing your story. I am not a survivor of Bill Gothard's teachings and probably only know his name because my mom told me about him visiting her church in the sixties and telling everyone not to listen to "rock music" and such. However, with the growing number of people looking to the Duggar family as a model of Christian living, I have followed the testimonies on RG, because as a Christian woman/wife/mother I am very disturbed by what I see as an extreme distortion of God's word being held up to the public eye as representative of the gospel. And it is a false gospel, for sure, because it is a gospel of looking right and acting right and being sure you don't do anything to cause someone else's thought to go astray... not a gospel of grace for the broken. My children go to a Christian school, but also have a lot of homeschooled friends who I fear are becoming ATI influenced, so it's something I keep an eye on- I did not know the word "defraud" as it is used in ATI context until recently, and now it just makes me cringe. Anyway, I came across your story today, a couple of weeks after having my first real discussion about sex and body parts with my 10 year old daughter. Like any mom, I was very nervous, but there is no way to describe how God blessed that sweet conversation with her... and your testimony makes me so thankful that I taught her the word "vagina" (and- gasp- "penis"). How sad that something God created to be a beautiful relationship between a man and a woman has been so distorted by Satan (and people)... and for the commenter(s) wondering how Mr. Gothard is to blame? Well, from everything I have read and heard from those who have been indoctrinated into his teaching, his distortions are no better or God-honoring than pornography. A distortion is a distortion. I pray that you continue to move toward complete freedom in Christ, Tanya. May He bring beauty from your ashes.

I like your post Robin I only want to clarify one thing you said. I don't think the world sees the Duggars as the model for Christian living. I think they see them for what they are, an extreme variation of a religion living on the fringe. I don't know that they help Christianity but I think people are savvy enough to take it for what it is. Anyone who thinks that show is a testimony to the unbelieving is delusional.

I sure hope you are right, Ryan! It makes me sad when I hear people imply (and I have heard this- usually from non-ATI Christian people) that they are a model family. I'm sure they are lovely people, but I feel like what they are modeling is a set of rules and regulations, and if they think that is drawing anyone to Christ I'm afraid they are sadly mistaken. Really, they are the only reason I am aware that the Gothard scene is still alive and kicking anywhere.

RyanMay 4, 2014

At least the show shows a family that gets along. Heavens knows they could find a Christian family with a gaggle of kids and have the show be about the dysfunction. Everyone loves to watch a train wreck. It could be worse.

Thank you everyone for your comments of support and encouragement. They mean so much to me. What means more is knowing that my story has/hopefully will help someone else who may have gone through something similar. We are not alone. And not to blame.

I want to clarify a couple of points especially for the likes of Luke and others questioning why my parents aren't responsible. Firstly...they are. And they know they are. I think my mothers motivation for not teaching me the basics was because, possibly in her mind, how could this happen if she was with me every day. I was taught not to be alone with a man because "something bad" could happen. But the thought of this happening when she (my protector) was in the room never registered. And why should it? Most abusers would never think of being so blatant! To my parents I was just being stroppy. I had been poked and prodded multiple times on a daily basis while I was sick so I think they just thought I was sick of it. I did say I didn't like him touching me but because I didn't have the words to say, I couldn't describe what he was doing. My body wasn't my own during the time I was sick. I had to submit to being administered medications that made me want to die. But I was alive so I needed to be grateful to the man who helped save my life. My abuser.As for why I didn't "cry out" or tell him to stop touching me in a sexual way. Firstly...not only did I not have to words to describe my body, but I also didn't have the words to describe anything like this. Words like sex, pregnant, breast feeding were seen as perverse and dirty. Instead we used words like "expecting" or "in the family way" or "nursing". Don't get me started on what to call something like sex. There was no substitute. And this is not limited to just my family. This was the culture of our circle of friends in ATI with us. We were all following the teachings of modesty and not bringing attention to something like sex. As for "crying out"...I'm sure you may be aware that, when in a high risk situation, the body responds in either a fight or flight response. What many people are unaware of is that there is also another response. Freeze. When you freeze you literally cannot move or speak. Your brain shuts down and you can't do anything to save yourself. Let alone speak out.

I as so many have questioned prewar Germany and how could the German people have allowed the atrocity of the Holocust. How could they turn the other way as they witnessed their neighbors rounded up and arrested simply for being a jew. What the germans claim is their absolute trust and obedience to authority governing them. They were taught from childhood to not question authority.We know the results of unquestioning obedience.

Speaking of the umbrella of protection that Gothard teaches,although it has been years since I turned my back on his teaching,i found myself asking if I somehow had invited God's displeasure with me after learning I have stomach cancer last week.The first thing I thought of was 'the umbrella of protection'. I was dismayed over such a thought that I know is in error..yet that teaching began to haunt me.sigh.(please if you read this,could you remember me in prayer?

Guest,Yes of course I and I'm sure the others will be praying for you. May God bring you healing, Dr's wisdom and peace. It it totally understandable to have old and bad teaching that one may have left years ago come back and haunt you when you face a serious trial like you are with cancer. I know that has happen with me and others here. One of the ways Gothard's teaching affected me in the past was to look at other's and their trials and wonder what principal they violated that may have put them in that situation. But that is not how Jesus treated people when they came to Him with their needs. Jesus didn't tell people that their current woes were due to some violation of some principal that they didn't even know about. Looking back, I think the umbrella of protection is just horrible and sick. One of things that helped me get over this and Bill's antidotes of support was to study people from the past that violated their "umbrellas of protection". St. Francis of Assissi who is admired by both Catholics and Protestants, not only broke with his father, he did so in a very public way. His female counterpart, St. Clare, ran off in the night away from her "umbrella of protection" to join him. St. Katherine of Sienna refused to marry her late sister's husband against her "umbrella of protection" orders, locked herself in her room and her parents finally relented. I could go on and on. I think when one looks at real people that really disobeyed their "umbrellas of protection" yet then God greatly used them afterwards, you begin to see that this is all nonsense, enslavement and unsupported even in the Bible. Your current situation was not caused by stepping away from your umbrella of protection. Whatever has caused the cancer, this wasn't it.

We live in a fallen world and trials are part of life and they do not mean that you failed and they are part of God's displeasure. My prayers are with you as you navigate through the various treatment options and may God draw near to you in this time of need. You will be in my prayers also. 2 Corinthians 12:9 "And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Want to Donate?

Want to donate to the Recovering Grace ministry? Do all of your Amazon shopping using the link below, and a small percentage comes back to us. Or you can donate directly via paypal to finance@recoveringgrace.org. Note: Recovering Grace is not a 501(c)3, and thus gifts are not tax-deductible.